ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) As the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants No.1 to 6 and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 2008, which was filed by the plaintiff before the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram (for short “the trial Court”) for grant of specific performance of agreement of sale. The present impugned I.A No.1149 of 2015 in O.S.No.28 of 2008 under Order VIII Rule 1(A) 3 of CPC seeking to receive documents and also filed I.A.No.1150 of 2015 in O.S.No.28 of 2008 before the trial Court under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to permit them to amend the written statement filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 by inserting the para 9(1) after para 9 of the written statement. The same were dismissed by the trial Court vide separate orders dated 27.01.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions came to be filed. 3. This Court, vide order dated 18.03.2016 in CRP Nos.1380 & 1381 of 2016, has granted interim stay reads as under: “There shall be stay of all further proceedings in OS No.28 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, for a period of eight weeks. 4. Heard Mr. J.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that praying to receive the enclosed documents by condoning the delay in filing the same, sine is contrary to the settled principle of law, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that marking of the documents are essential to prove the petitioners/defendants case and disprove the case of the respondents/plaintiffs. Further, it is a suit for alleged specific performance of agreement of sale and injunction, wherein, substantial rights of the parties to be decided on merits and on a full fledged trial. If it is not done, great prejudice will be caused to the parties. He further submits that the observations of the Court below are not on sound lines. The documents and evidence are confined only to the suit but not otherwise subject matter. If it is not done, great prejudice will be caused to the parties. He further submits that the observations of the Court below are not on sound lines. The documents and evidence are confined only to the suit but not otherwise subject matter. Therefore, the Court below in dismissing the I.As filed by the petitioners/defendants are contrary to settled principles of law and hence prayed to set aside the impugned orders. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in Rajah R.V.G.K. Ranga Rao and another v. Nizams Sugars Limited, Latchayyapeta, Seethanagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, 2004 (1) ALD 387 , wherein it was held that : and on the ground of laches there cannot be shutting of evidence provided the Court is satisfied that there is some reason for non-production of the documents as specified and contemplated by the provisions of the Code. If reasons are explained normally the Court may have to lean in favour of receiving the documents since it is the fundamental principle that the parties should be permitted to let in all possible evidence which are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the matters in controversy before the Court. It is also pertinent to note that the Courts are expected to be more careful and cautious in relation to reception of documents and instead of driving the parties to approach the revisional Court it is always better to grant leave and receive the documents permitting the parties to adduce necessary evidence and to expedite the matters and dispose of the main proceedings. By making such orders it is needless to observe that the proceedings will be further delayed. Viewed from any angle, the orders impugned in these revisions cannot be sustained and they are hereby set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners took several adjournments to adduce evidence and came with these petitions to harass the respondent/plaintiff and to drag on the matter having no cause. He further submits that as per the amended Act, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced and this provision is surely applicable to the present case. He further submits that as per the amended Act, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced and this provision is surely applicable to the present case. The document containing the signatures of the se defendants was converted as a sale agreement so indirectly the defendants No.1 to 3 admitted their signatures on the suit agreement but they are saying that the respondent/plaintiff obtained signatures on blank papers at the time of taking loan and subsequently filed. So the petitioners want to bring all together a new plea and withdraw the plea taken earlier by way of amendment cannot be allowed under law. He further submits that proposed document No.1 is already filed by the petitioners and the same was marked as Ex.A7 and hence there is no need to file the same again. The name of 3rd defendant is mentioned as Adinarayan in the plaint hence what is the necessity to file aadhar card and ration card showing his name as Adinarayan. Hence, the trial Court has rightly concluded and dismissed the applications in proper manner. 8. On perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the submissions of both the counsels, this Court observed that, the suit pertains to the year 2008 and the defendant has filed written statement on 16.4.2008 thereafter issues were settled, trial was commenced and evidence was also closed and the matter was posted for arguments and further list of document No.1 mentioned in the petition was already marked as Ex.A7. The specific contention of the respondent/plaintiff is that 3rd defendant signed on the document as Adinarayan Murthy though his name is Adinarayana. The person Adinarayana and Adinarayana Murthy is one and the same. Moreover in the written statement name of the 3rd defendant was mentioned as Adinarayan and the plaint was filed after lapse of long time and after adducing evidence on both sides and also when the matter was posted for arguments. 9. On hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is observed that the proposed documents are to be received for the purpose of marking the same for proper adjudication of the suit and that the proposed documents are relevant and useful in determining the issue and hence the documents are to be received for the purpose of marking the same. 10. 10. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in a catena of decisions reported in (i) Joint Commissioner-cum-Chief Fire Officer Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and others v. Ajay Singh, Civil Revision Peititon No.59 of 2021 dt. 20.07.2022, held that “No good cause for not placing the CD along with written statement, at the first instance, ever came to be placed on record, rather pleadings as set up in the written statement and application filed Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC are contradictory. (ii) Nerudu Srinivas Reddy and another v. Neerudu Sunanda alias Sunanda Reddy alias Sripathy Sunanda Reddy, 2016 (3) ALD 49 , wherein it was held that invoking of inherent power under Section 151 CPC in the facts of the present case is for brining of further evidence in the form of an Advocate Commissioners report by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the procedure for adducing and recording of evidence as provided for under Order XVIII may be noticed. (iii) In K.K. Veluswamy v. N. Palaniswamy, 2011 Law Suit (SC) 271, wherein it was held that the ode earlier had a specific provision in Order 18 Rule 17A for production of evidence not previously known or the evidence which could not be produced despite due diligence. (iv). In a case reported in Pallepati Narasaiah and others Vs. P. Satyanarayana and others, 2019 (6) ALT 360 (S.B.), wherein the High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad, held that : Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 8 Rule 1-A Filing of additional documents. It is incumbent on the part of a defendant. To produce documents along with his written statement. If he did not produce it along with the written statement, without leave of the Court, he cannot file it later Order 8 Rule 1-A (1 and 3) CPC} only if party is prevented by circumstances beyond his control to file the documents along with the written statement, the Court may consider allowing the defendant to file documents subsequently Revision is allowed. After the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 01.07.2002, it is incumbent on the part of a defendant who bases his defence on document, or relies upon any document in his possession or power in support of his defence, to produce it along with his written statement, and also file a copy of it; and if he did not produce it along with the written statement, without the leave of the Court, he cannot file it later {Order VIII Rule 1A (1 & 3) CPC}. The reason for this rule is that both parties should go to trial knowing each others' documents and neither party can take the other by surprise at a later stage after his evidence is completed. (v). In another case reported in Voruganti Narayana Rao Vs. Bodla Rammurthy and others, 2011(6) ALT 299 (S.B.), wherein the High Copurt of Judicature at Hyderabad held that : Documents not produced with written statement – Allowing of, subsequently- court vested with discretion to allow such documents to be produced later, only if sufficient cause is assigned by defendant and not for mere asking – Suit on pronote filed by petitioner – Evidence on plaintiff’s side closed – D.3 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Later, defendants filed application for receiving seven pronotes into evidence.” (vi). In another case reported in Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad and others, 2009 (3) ALT 236 (S.B.), wherein the High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad, held that : The question, which arises for consideration in all these five revisions is whether the Court below is required under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to receive documents despite absence of cause being shown by the applicant. Under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC, a document, which ought to be produced before the Court by the defendant under Rule 1, but it is not so produced shall not, without leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Subrule( 3) was inserted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01.07.2022. Sub-rule(3) of Rule 1-A of Order VIII permits the documents to be received only on leave being granted by the Court. Subrule( 3) was inserted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01.07.2022. Sub-rule(3) of Rule 1-A of Order VIII permits the documents to be received only on leave being granted by the Court. Grant of leave is not for the mere asking, nor is the Court a mere Post-Office to \receive documents even in the absence of any reasons being furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no reasons whatsoever have been furnished by the petitioner, let alone adequate cause been shown as to why the documents, which were the subject matter of the application, could not be filed earlier along with the written statement. Having chosen not to give any reasons, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Court below should have received the documents, since the petitioner’s right could be adversely affected for failure on its part to receive the documents. While it is no doubt true that admissibility and proof of documents are matters which ought not to be gone into at the time of receipt of documents, the fact, however, remains that the leave sought for can only be granted on adequate reasons being furnished justifying failure on the part of the applicant in not filing the document along with the written statement earlier. The contention that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondent/plaintiff has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that their right to file rejoinder based on the said document had been denied. The court below has not committed any jurisdictional error nor has its order resulted in such manifest injustice as to necessitate interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (vii). In a case of Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others Vs. P.V. Surya Narayana, 2017 (4) ALT 582 (S.B.), wherein this Court held that : In the affidavit filed in support of the present I.A.No.447 of 2016 the defendants stated that at the material time of filing counter and chief examination affidavit, some of the important documents could not be filed and the same are very essential and crucial to prove the case of the defendants and the said documents could be recently traced out. While stating so, the defendants/petitioners herein prayed the Court below to condone the delay in receiving the said documents. Admittedly, in the present suit, recording of evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs came to an end. Except stating that at the time of filing counter and chief examination affidavits the documents could not be filed and they could be traced recently, no other reason is forthcoming nor did the petitioners state clearly the reasons for not filing the said documents along with the written statement. If the reason as stated in the present affidavit is treated as a reasonable one, the same can be a reason in each and every case. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said reason assigned by the petitioners herein, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be a valid reason. The petitioners herein even did not state in the affidavit that despite their due diligence, the proposed documents could not be traced out at the relevant point of time. (viii) In another citation reported in Voruganti Narayana Rao Vs Bodla Rammurthy and others, 2011 (6) ALT 299 (S.B), wherein the High Court of judicature at Hyderabad held that : Rules 1-A and 1-A(3)of Order VIII C.P.C., were substituted by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002. The object with which those Rules were amended was to curb the phenomenal delays in the procedural aspects leading to procrastination of the proceedings before the civil Court. The Parliament has thought it fit to stipulate time limits for the parties to file their defence and produce the documents along with the defence so that the cases can be disposed of without avoidable delays. This being the avowed object with which the above noted provisions are amended, Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII C.P.C., which on a literal interpretation appears to vest unlimited discretion with the Court, requires to be interpreted so as to advance the intendment of the legislation. The Court before which the defendant produced the said documents after filing of the written statement, therefore, needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are assigned by the defendant for not producing the documents along with the written statement. The Court before which the defendant produced the said documents after filing of the written statement, therefore, needs to be circumspect in examining whether proper reasons are assigned by the defendant for not producing the documents along with the written statement. Unless the reasons assigned by the defendant discloses sufficient cause for his failure to produce the documents within the time stipulated in Rule 1-A of Order VIII C.P.C., the Court shall not permit the defendant to file such documents later. Undoubtedly, unduly liberal approach in this regard would frustrate the purpose for which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended. This Court in Ravi Satish (cited supra) held that grant of leave by the Court is not for the mere asking nor is the Court a mere post-office to receive documents even in the absence of any reasons furnished for failure to file the said documents along with the written statement. 11. On perusing the entire material available on record and in the light of the judgments cited above, this Court observed that, the present case is also similarly situated petitioners. The suit is filed in the year 2008, thereafter, on several occasions, the matter was adjourned. The simple reason mentioned in the petition that the documents are not available at the time of petitioner’s evidence and he could trace them is not sufficient to grant leave to the petitioner to file the said documents after lapse of long time, without necessary details like when and how they were traced and where they were traced. Further, there is no explanation is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners/D1 to D6 how the proposed documents are relevant to determine the issues on hand. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the submissions of both the counsels, this Court observed that, the principles laid down in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. It is also settled principle of law that unless the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error or patent perversity, the power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service. It is also settled principle of law that unless the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error or patent perversity, the power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service. Therefore, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any shadow of doubt to hold that the orders under challenge do not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed. Further, since the suit pertains to the year 2008, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously, as possible, preferably, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. It is made clear that interim order granted, vide order dated 18.03.2016 in both the CRPs, are hereby vacated. 15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.